LR Question 24 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: In an effort to reduce underage drinking…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The pledge seems to be successful.
REASONING: People who don’t drink have often taken a pledge not to drink.
ANALYSIS: The pledge is voluntary. Who would take a pledge to avoid alcohol? Probably those who don’t like to drink in the first place.
So the pledge could be the effect of not drinking, rather than the cause of not drinking.
___________
- Normative judgement means judging something to be right or wrong. The author didn’t say whether it’s morally right to tell teens not to drink.
- The conclusion was just that the pledge seems to work. The conclusion wasn’t that the pledge is the most successful measure in the history of the universe.
- CORRECT. It’s possible people took the pledge because they don’t like drinking. People who like to drink would not take the pledge. So the pledge is an effect, not a cause.
- There aren’t any sufficient-necessary statements in the stimulus. The argument didn’t say that the pledge always stops drinking, or that it is required to stop drinking.
- The argument only made the first claim. The second claim wasn’t mentioned.If you thought this was right, look very carefully at the stimulus. Why did you choose this answer? What made you think the argument had mixed up these claims?
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
In E, the claims are essentially the same thing, so it’s nonsensical to think that confusing one claim for the same claim is a flaw.
They’re actually pretty different claims. Consider these two:
* Many American presidents are tall
* Many tall people are American president
It’s true that the bulk of presidents are tall. But being president is rare, so the second claim isn’t remotely true. Mixing these two claims up would be a big mistake. E describes the same reversal.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
On this question, I was between C and E but got confused on which to pick because I originally thought the flaw was that those who *reported* not drinking is not the same thing as not drinking. I.e. – What if those who reported not drinking actually DO drink, but falsely reported not doing so because of survey bias (which is a common flaw on lR)? I think I made E “work” in my mind by justifying that it was identifying this flaw – those who “do not drink” report they took the pledge vs they report having taken the pledge but do not drink. I understand why C is correct – they could have chosen not to drink for reasons other than the pledge, so they are not correlated, but can clarify the language of E so I can avoid confusing myself on later questions? Thank you so much!
You’re right in that some teens could’ve falsely reported that they aren’t actually upholding their pledge, which can be a flaw in this argument. But this isn’t what Answer Choice E says. E’s two statements actually mean the same thing. A similar example would be: “Many law students are smart, and many smart people are law students.” (Remember that “many” and “some” mean the same on the LSAT; substituting “some” here might help you understand better. Also keep in mind that “some” statements are bidirectional, and thus always reversible.) You can’t confuse two things that mean the same.